I found Cassavetes' art-house styled gangster picture to be extremely shallow and difficult to watch. Drawn out scenes in a dimly lit strip club are seeping with realism; this is what you would expect to see in a gentlemen's club, but the atrocious acting and scenery that comes along with such an environment simply does not make for good cinema. The subtle, "family oriented" Gazzara is only half as interesting as Cassavetes would like him to be; his faults are cliche and typical of the gangster. It's hard to sympathize or connect with Gazzara because its hard to penetrate his thoughts and emotions---its hard to invest I guess. While characterization of the main protagonist is a lightly sketched, certain scenes in The Killing of a Chinese Bookie are pretty tremendous, especially a sequence consisting of a amateur assassination. I definitely want to revisit the shorter cut of this film to see how well it works or doesn't work me. Ultimately I can see the love and the hate attached with this particular film, but at this moment I'm caught in the middle, leaning more toward slight disdain.

Dirty Wars (2013) 2/4

Everyone loves a juicy conspiracy--those who believe in the conspiracy itself, and those who cannot wait for the next one to surface in order to mock the waining intellect of the believers. Conspiracy is at the center of Dirty Wars, a documentary that examines government enacted cover-ups throughout Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen. The first act of the documentary itself is pretty engaging, giving viewers a good amount of evidence concerning one family whose members were murdered because of inaccurate intel. However Dirty Wars shifts from interesting, evidence driven documentary to an exasperating attempt at grasping for straws. Essentially, Dirty Wars is big on accusations with not a lot of evidence to fully back them up-- if your going to make a claim that the US is launching strikes Against Yemen give the viewer more than just a photo of a bomb with English writing on the side. This is a doc that hinges on making the viewer believe that crimes during war are few and far between. Director Rick Rowley wants to uncover the hidden agenda behind the US government and its actions overseas, but his film ends up very in a very close proximity to where it started:

The Counselor (2013) 2.5/4

Hopefully I wont get too much shit over this but I didn't necessarily hate Scott's newest film. Yes the dialogue is thick and pretentious, cutting out any possible morsels of humanity. Characters are thinly drawn (sometimes being over exaggerated) and seem only to serve some larger purpose for deeper themes. Hell, the plot isn't even very good, but certain scenes and even certain interactions have somewhat resonated with me to some extent. The themes of sex and love coupled with a strong neo-noir vibe make The Counselor a sometimes-interesting, evocative film. It's safe to say that this film is grasping for much more than it conveys on screen, but I can't help but admire some of its qualities. If anything The Counselor examines the female (arguably the femme fatale) in modern day cinema, and how such characters warp and trap the minds of usually safe, cautious men. Sometimes love and sex are the biggest pitfalls of the man; these things cloud judgement and induce a greater need for greed. In regards to the aforementioned elements, The Counselor succeeds, but arguably falls short of establishing itself as a truly noteworthy crime flick.

The Interrupters (2011) 3.5/4

Ahhh, such a great documentary on gang violence in the Chicago area, and the measures taken to decrease possible gang motivated killings. I love it when a documentary places the viewer right into the center of the situations at hand, allowing the viewer to partly experience an individuals strained environment. The Interrupters doesn't take a stand or commit to the usual well-known bias of the normative documentary, it simply observes and monitors. The well known criminal theorist of the social learning theory, Ronald Akers, contended that crime/delinquency was the product of socialized learning, beliefs favorable to crime, and association with delinquent peers. In this regard, The Interrupters plays like a love letter to Akers&Burgess theory of crime, but it also looks at the human element of belonging and protecting ones identity. If you have a chance, check this out--its on Netflix Instant and Amazon Prime Video--I highly recommend it.

_________________"I have now come to claim that satisfaction."

Tue Oct 29, 2013 4:33 pm

MGamesCook

Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pmPosts: 1845

Re: Last Movie You Watched

Quote:

both consist of two-dimensional pictures in a certain aspect ratio being projected at a minimum of 18 fps, usually 24 fps, to give the illusion of movement.

They both make noise too, but I think the formalistic similarity with the average hound dog is pretty thin. And their aspect ratios are different, matter of fact. Their framing is different. The sense of movement is different. The color palette is different. The editing style is different. To make it easier, I'm not talking about animated vs. live action anymore. I'm just talking about Iron Giant vs. E.T. Last time I checked, those are two different movies.

Tue Oct 29, 2013 5:56 pm

JamesKunz

Critic

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 amPosts: 6010Location: Easton, MD

Re: Last Movie You Watched

JackBurns wrote:

JamesKunz wrote:

Room 237 (2012) **

AKA Confirmation Bias, The Movie

AKA Why Post-Modern Philosophy Is Really Really Annoying

Sometimes this forum works just like it's supposed to. I was intrigued by y'all's conversation about the movie, found it on instant, and watched it before the World Series started. It ended up making me just really...angry. First of all, I wasn't impressed much by its structure as a documentary. Or rather, I was troubled by what I perceived to be a lack of structure: "Here are some theories about The Shining -- let's talk about them." As Ken alluded to, there's a lot of great film theory that could have been discussed, but instead they focus on crackpottery with almost nothing to back it up. The longer the movie went out, the more irritated I became. So perhaps the forum didn't work like it was supposed to, in that I ended up rather vexed.

I liked this one more than you (3 out of 4 stars for me). The craft and structure are very very clunky, but the films message about art is pretty substantial. Does it take the right measure to get there? Perhaps not, but it still conveys, relatively well I might add, the readings that one can have about a certain film or piece of art regardless of its logic. Yes it treads the grounds of relativism (damn philosophy, trying to give everyone their due and not hurt feelings!)-- not everyone's opinion is "correct" or even sound for that matter, but these individuals find confirmation in their "Shinning theories" through rather obscure aspects, showing that the artist is no longer in control of meaning or intention once said art is put out for public consumption. With that said, I think this is a film about the odd, sometimes illogical theories that rattle around in peoples heads once they finish digesting a film that is strong is underlying themes. We've all had that experience to some extent before--trying to figure out what the heck happened in Mulholland Drive or arguing about the relationship conveyed in Certified Copy. A lot of films spawn mad theories, and I really kind of enjoyed its take. The structure form isn't the best or most appealing; definitely not conventional doc style or anything close for that matter, but I still think this film has quite a bit to say about individual meaning and art.

But is there anything that this movie has to say that that couldn't have been said in 20 minutes? If it's about the relationship between person and art, then one absurd, confirmation bias laden, crackpot theory proves that point. The next eight are overkill.

_________________I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger

Tue Oct 29, 2013 7:49 pm

JamesKunz

Critic

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 amPosts: 6010Location: Easton, MD

Re: Last Movie You Watched

MGamesCook wrote:

Quote:

both consist of two-dimensional pictures in a certain aspect ratio being projected at a minimum of 18 fps, usually 24 fps, to give the illusion of movement.

They both make noise too, but I think the formalistic similarity with the average hound dog is pretty thin. And their aspect ratios are different, matter of fact. Their framing is different. The sense of movement is different. The color palette is different. The editing style is different. To make it easier, I'm not talking about animated vs. live action anymore. I'm just talking about Iron Giant vs. E.T. Last time I checked, those are two different movies.

If we can't compare movies with very similar plots, then we're going to need to pack up our bags and go home from this forum

_________________I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger

Tue Oct 29, 2013 7:49 pm

ilovemovies

Producer

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:04 amPosts: 2205

Re: Last Movie You Watched

Riddick - *** out of ****

Surprisingly enjoyable since I didn't care much for Pitch Black and Chronicles of Riddick.

Tue Oct 29, 2013 9:08 pm

Steven

Second Unit Director

Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2013 11:29 amPosts: 325Location: Watertown, SD

Re: Last Movie You Watched

ilovemovies wrote:

Riddick - *** out of ****

Surprisingly enjoyable since I didn't care much for Pitch Black and Chronicles of Riddick.

I initially awarded Riddick three stars, but I adjusted it down to 2.5 because it was so forgettable. I can hardly remember what happened, I just remember having a pretty good time.

But is there anything that this movie has to say that that couldn't have been said in 20 minutes? If it's about the relationship between person and art, then one absurd, confirmation bias laden, crackpot theory proves that point. The next eight are overkill.

Oh I can definitely hear your sentiment dude, but one could argue that many films prove their "point" early on and what follows could be thematic overkill. Could it have been done in 20 minutes, sure. But I feel like each theory, however crackpotted it may be compounds on what was presented earlier. This isn't just one individual who has a crack pot theory, this is 8 different people--arguably more representative. Again, its while it is people literally talking about their theories, it also gives visual aid to these theories--each theory is given time to explore the elements in the film that they feel "back up" and give "merit" to their theory. The theories could have all been blurted out in 20 minutes, but could they have been explored as well? Probably not.

_________________"I have now come to claim that satisfaction."

Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:21 pm

Thief12

Assistant Director

Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:35 pmPosts: 822Location: Puerto Rico

Re: Last Movie You Watched

Sunday watches en route to Halloween...

The Fly (1958) I was ready for this to be more campy, but it ended up being quite solid. I mean, there's the inherent campiness of similar 50's sci-fi/horror films, but not as much as I expected, which I think was good. I still think that the reaction of most of the characters to the events (Andre's death in the opening, the reveal of the fly in the middle of the film) wasn't that well acted or managed, but I still enjoyed it a lot. I remember seeing the remake back in the 80's, but I haven't seen it in decades, so I can't compare. I have plans to rewatch it, but regardless of that this was a good watch. Grade: B

Død Snø What's scarier? Nazis or Zombies? What about Nazi Zombies? That seems to be the premise of this 2009 Norweigan horror comedy. But aside of the Nazi Zombies, the film pretty much plays itself like either an Evil Dead rip-off or homage, whatever you decide. Ironically, I'm not a huge fan of Raimi's film, but I enjoyed this one quite a bit. Some good scares, a lot of gore, some really effective scenes as far as directing goes, plus I chuckled a lot. What more can I ask from a horror comedy? Grade: B

I would argue that Room 237 has more to do with the relationship between these people and their topical obsessions than it has to do with their relationship with the art. Precious little time is spent on substantive portions of The Shining itself and the theories don't utilize much of the evidence from the film. Far more evidence sprang apparently in whole cloth from the minds of the theorists than from anywhere else, and that's a poor basis for criticism.

I realize that seems a little finicky, but I am legit annoyed that such a fascinating movie is given such a cursory treatment by what might have been an excellent piece of critical filmmaking.

Harlan Ellison famously said that people are entitled to their informed opinion--meaning that while an opinion can't be judged correct or incorrect, it can be judged as worthy or worthless by how much information was used as its basis and how good the information is. If you're going to bring forth a pet theory on a movie, bring forth evidence from the movie, or it's just a bunch of jerkoffery.

_________________The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.

Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:38 pm

JackBurns

Second Unit Director

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:51 pmPosts: 345Location: Durham, NC

Re: Last Movie You Watched

Ken wrote:

I would argue that Room 237 has more to do with the relationship between these people and their topical obsessions than it has to do with their relationship with the art. Precious little time is spent on substantive portions of The Shining itself and the theories don't utilize much of the evidence from the film. Far more evidence sprang apparently in whole cloth from the minds of the theorists than from anywhere else, and that's a poor basis for criticism.

I realize that seems a little finicky, but I am legit annoyed that such a fascinating movie is given such a cursory treatment by what might have been an excellent piece of critical filmmaking.

Harlan Ellison famously said that people are entitled to their informed opinion--meaning that while an opinion can't be judged correct or incorrect, it can be judged as worthy or worthless by how much information was used as its basis and how good the information is. If you're going to bring forth a pet theory on a movie, bring forth evidence from the movie, or it's just a bunch of jerkoffery.

Agreed with the bolded 100% Ken.

Yea it definitely deals with these people's obsessions. But their obsession stems from the art, or in this matter the film. My point, which I don't turned into something else completely different, is simply that once the artist releases his/her work it is essentially no longer controlled by them. Individuals can look at said art and develop their own feelings, which are generally different from what the artist envisioned. Again, once art is put out for the public, its meanings can become individualized and take on a new life entirely. In that sense, at least to me, Room 237 succeeds.

And I would argue (devils advocate) that there is evidence that backs up claims made in the film, one in particular---the lady who talks about Kubrick's sense of space in The Shinning. Multiple shots and sequences from the film are analyzed to complete this blue print of the hotel that makes no fluid sense, in turn this creates an odd, maze like atmosphere. I'm not entirely sure what the lady was trying to get at, but she brought forth evidence, so I wouldn't evidence is not presented. However, as you alluded to, most of the theories concentrate on a very small portion of a scene/sequence.

I guess my enjoyment of the film was rooted in these far reaching, off the wall theories; art taking on different meaning regardless of its logic. As I said earlier, it definitely creates a pretty substantial relativism issue, but I'm not really concerned with that. Im more concerned with how a piece of art, like film, can inspire or spawn such theories out of clearly passionate folks, and how art can represent/mean so many different things depending on the individual.

_________________"I have now come to claim that satisfaction."

Tue Oct 29, 2013 11:49 pm

peng

Director

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:42 pmPosts: 1378Location: Bangkok

Re: Last Movie You Watched

Suspiria (1977)

My first Argento. The story and characters are not much to be said about, but that's OK because this is a movie primarily for the senses. The combined effects of lush visual, drumming music, colorful violence, and over the top performances are hypnotizing as hell, like watching an opera of Disney fantasy gone askewed. It isn't exactly scary, even though some stretches can get under the skin. Still, it's a highly entertaining experience. 8/10

The Bird with the Crystal Plumage (1970)

I found my second Argento (and his debut) just barely good. Without the entertaining and hypnotic excess of Suspiria, it failed to hold my interest at times, and the acting, ranging from mediocre to barely ok, doesn't come to rescue. It's a fairly clever plot though, I'll give it that. I thought I'd figured it out at one time, and then not. The set pieces are well staged and appealingly visual as usual. It's an impressive directorial debut, to be sure, but not a very compelling one to me. 6.5/10

Errors of the Human Body (2013)

A slow, moody medical drama/thriller with a horror tinge, the story concerns a doctor coming to a research faculty in Germany to develop a cure after a personal tragedy. Soon he becomes involved in the hostile office politics and unexpected consequences of his works. The plot is a little "simple" and on the thin side. Still, both the acting and the beautiful, evocative directing are very good, with a slight hint of the Cronenberg. The ideas it raises, though nothing new nor explored in details, are engaging enough to sustain. And it has one of 2013's best endings for me... very, very quiet yet no less devastating. Worth seeking out. 7.5/10

Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:29 am

JamesKunz

Critic

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 amPosts: 6010Location: Easton, MD

Re: Last Movie You Watched

peng wrote:

Suspiria (1977)

My first Argento. The story and characters are not much to be said about, but that's OK because this is a movie primarily for the senses. The combined effects of lush visual, drumming music, colorful violence, and over the top performances are hypnotizing as hell, like watching an opera of Disney fantasy gone askewed. It isn't exactly scary, even though some stretches can get under the skin. Still, it's a highly entertaining experience. 8/10

The terrible acting, characterization, and dialogue is too much for me to get beyond

_________________I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger

Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:57 pm

Ken

Director

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pmPosts: 1728

Re: Last Movie You Watched

I've only seen Suspiria once, quite some time ago, and my reaction to it was pretty negative. I enjoyed the lurid imagery, but it was pretty goofy otherwise.

_________________The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.

Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:00 pm

Sexual Chocolate

Director

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pmPosts: 1748Location: New Hampshire

Re: Last Movie You Watched

I'm a pretty big defender of Suspiria. If you're looking for films that make logical sense, Argento's work is probably the last place you want to go. But if you're looking for awesome shot composition, amazing use of color and films with atmosphere galore, he's your man.

With that said, I recently watched another cult film:

Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn

For his sequel to The Evil Dead, Sam Raimi spends the first 10 minutes remaking the first film...and then the rest of the film remaking it again. I have always thought that Dead by Dawn is the weak link in the trilogy; it doesn't have the pure shock value of the first, but it isn't as humorous and quotable as Army of Darkness. It's just a really strange film, which I suppose is some of its appeal. In the end, I find the original to be far superior. However, Dead by Dawn contains a hilarious joke involving a severed hand and an Ernest Hemingway novel...so there's that.

_________________Death is pretty finalI'm collecting vinylI'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.

Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:54 pm

JamesKunz

Critic

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 amPosts: 6010Location: Easton, MD

Re: Last Movie You Watched

Sexual Chocolate wrote:

I'm a pretty big defender of Suspiria. If you're looking for films that make logical sense, Argento's work is probably the last place you want to go. But if you're looking for awesome shot composition, amazing use of color and films with atmosphere galore, he's your man.

With that said, I recently watched another cult film:

Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn

For his sequel to The Evil Dead, Sam Raimi spends the first 10 minutes remaking the first film...and then the rest of the film remaking it again. I have always thought that Dead by Dawn is the weak link in the trilogy; it doesn't have the pure shock value of the first, but it isn't as humorous and quotable as Army of Darkness. It's just a really strange film, which I suppose is some of its appeal. In the end, I find the original to be far superior. However, Dead by Dawn contains a hilarious joke involving a severed hand and an Ernest Hemingway novel...so there's that.

Huh. I've never heard it called anything but Evil Dead II

_________________I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger

Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:56 pm

JackBurns

Second Unit Director

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:51 pmPosts: 345Location: Durham, NC

Re: Last Movie You Watched

Night of the Living Dead (1968) 3.5/4

Low budget filmmaking at its finest. Romero's first feature length film not only laid the ground work for future "zombie" films, it built a sturdy template for the horror genre as a whole. While Romero asserted that he intended no political commentary in the film itself, its hard not to watch Night of the Living Dead and not notice themes relevant to the aspects of its time--ranging from Vietnam, communism, and race relations. In my opinion, these themes separated Night of the Living Dead from the traditional horror its time; Romero had made a film that was elegantly frightening yet still applicable to the nature of society at the time. Even though Judith O'Dea is infuriatingly annoying at times, its impossible not to admire this film for everything it accomplished.

Hell and Back Again (2011) 3/4

In order to prove if something has a casual relationship, it must go through temporal ordering; the effect cannot come before the cause in order to prove such a relationship. Essentially this is a pretty big fault of Hell and Back Again, a documentary that focuses on the life of a combat soldier who has recently returned back to the states. Director Danfung Dennis offers viewers incredible ground footage which focuses on the daily lives of a platoon in Afghanistan, however Dennis' message about the toll of war becomes lost in the individual that it follows throughout the duration of the film. The message of the film is clear: War changes you. Yet this message can't be firmly established when the solider being followed clearly had issues before joining the armed forces; citing one specific time in the film, the solider says "I joined the marines to kill people. Thats all I wanted to do." Those are not the words of a normal individual, and such verbal instances hurt the film as a whole. The overall craft of Hell and Back Again cannot be denied, but the soldier the doc follows may not have been the best choice for a film that deals with such a prevalent issue.

The Evil Dead (1981) 3/4

People generally take Sam Raimi's The Evil Dead as a gory, campy-blast, and who would deny that? Theres no doubt that The Evil Dead is all of the aforementioned things, but it also seems to be poking at young-adult mindsets in the late 70's and early 80's--individuals who had completely different sets of ideals from their parents generation, especially regarding autonomy and pre-marital sex. Maybe its a stretch to say that Raimi was commenting on these things by turning a young group of cabin-locked individuals into demons--an image that many parents may have applied to their rebellious children during this time. Regardless of its possible deeper meanings, The Evil Dead is extremely satisfying. And while characters still do things (or fail to do things) that taped messages suggest to do in case of an all out demon emergency, the film succeeds in creating an immensely tense atmosphere and environment that is highly conducive to bloody scares.

_________________"I have now come to claim that satisfaction."

Fri Nov 01, 2013 1:40 am

MGamesCook

Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pmPosts: 1845

Re: Last Movie You Watched

MASH

For the first three quarters, it's one of the best comedies ever made. But then Altman's film turns sour once they go to Japan, and stays that way for the football game. Basically, the humiliation of Hotlips is the last strong scene of the movie. I don't know what happened, but I can't think of many other times where a movie has taken such a tremendous nosedive in the final act.

Fri Nov 01, 2013 4:58 am

peng

Director

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:42 pmPosts: 1378Location: Bangkok

Re: Last Movie You Watched

Last two October days' movies onslaught..

Cemetery Man (1994)

Well, that was weird. The direction and images are top-notch, gorgeous, and real atmospheric throughout. The film has a great warped sense of humor, and the acting fits the material perfectly. However, halfway through the film, the material started to drift away from me and my interest. It got circular and at times repetitious. The ending is nicely WTF though. 7/10

Halloween (1978)

It certainly is one of my very high-rated movies that I understand completely where those who didn't like it are coming from, but I just plain love this movie. This time is my first rewatch, and it is still as great as ever. Whereas most slashers consisted of several jump scares, this one to me feels as if it's one long, building, continuous jump scare that is expertly executed, which makes it really unlike those that followed and very memorable. 9.5/10

Halloween II (1981)

This one went down a notch in rewatch. Some eh stuff I haven't noticed before (so Dr. Loomis basically chased an innocent kid to his death), and tediousness started to settle in as it was more of a showcase for death scenes. Curtis' presence is welcome, though (although I felt the movie wasted her potential a bit). The hospital setting is also nicely eerie, and the energy kicked up after Loomis showed up at the hospital all the way to the end. 6.5/10

Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998)

Meanwhile, this one went up in rewatch. This time I noticed how more referential it was, both to the original movie and the genre (love Leigh's cameo, and Curtis' screaming "fuck!" after opening a door to an empty, familiar-looking closet), and how really good Curtis' performance is. Her PTSD arc is handled seriously and executed quite well, making her last stand up to her brother in the last act really a great moment to end the series on. 7.5/10

Halloween III (1982)

Um, this is a weird one. It's vaguely fun, sure, and it nicely feels in synch with the Halloween spirit. The story is like a nicely twisted Twilight Zone episode, but it felt like it was on empty air for many stretches. Should have been a 40-minute episode, or even one-hour special. The last half-hour is good and the ending great, though. 6.5/10

The Exorcist (1973)

This one a rewatch. Last time, almost 10 years ago, I wasn't into the film that much, feeling it overlong. But now I really appreciate the supreme craft of the film, like the assured direction and set design. The acting also stands out more. I didn't ever remember the crisis-of-faith subplot until this rewatch. The shocking scenes still remain its power to disturb. I'm still finding it a tad long, especially the first hour, and it wasn't really that scary, but I've come to really like it as a very good story well told. 8/10

The Exorcist III (1990)

The plot got muddled on the way to the finish line, and the story, although a little more ambitious than I expect, didn't build momentum as much as progressed in lurches and stops. Still, it executed its scares well, I really liked the continuity from the first film, and George C. Scott is great and really elevated every scene he's in. A fun sequel. 7/10

Fri Nov 01, 2013 7:44 am

Ken

Director

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pmPosts: 1728

Re: Last Movie You Watched

I haven't seen The Exorcist Part III in a good long while, but I remember being surprised by how good it was.

Do you have plans to watch either version of the prequel? The Schrader one is far from perfect, but it's well worth a look.

_________________The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.

Fri Nov 01, 2013 8:16 am

MGamesCook

Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pmPosts: 1845

Re: Last Movie You Watched

Superman 1978

Gave this another watch for the first time since Man of Steel. It's fascinating because the contrast with Steel so clearly illuminates the problems with both. The fact that both exist make it difficult to overlook the flaws in either. Superman's crowd-pleasing aspects are definitely infectious and I can see why Steel is frustrating for the lack of them. Superman is a film you just can't help but love. And there are some extraordinary scenes, like when Lex makes Clark's ears hurt with a high frequency. I love the brevity of Pa Kent's lecture in this one. Maybe the best line in the film: "You were sent here for a reason, and it wasn't to make touchdowns."

There's a lot of great stuff, but I have to say, there's a lot of problems too. There's a lot of things Steel does better. Firstly, Donner's Krypton looks cool but it's unconvincing. Snyder really improved on that aspect, and his Kryptonian prologue is better and richer than Donner's. Another major flaw with Donner's movie is the first actor who plays Clark for the first 50 minutes of the movie. He looks barely even younger than Christopher Reeve, so why not just use Reeve for these scenes? It's a major flaw in the movie, something Snyder also improves on. Snyder's scene of Superman learning how to fly, and his euphoria in doing so, is essential. Donner's movie is really missing a scene like that. And finally, I have to say overall...Superman 1978 isn't quite the epic saga that it pretends to be. It starts out like an epic, then becomes more of a sitcom, and finally more of a Bond movie. It feels extremely unfocused at times, constantly cutting back to Lex Luthor for like an hour before he even becomes relevant. It feels more unfocused than Man of Steel. And yes, putting Lois in the fortress of solitude, then on Zod's ship, AND on Colonel Hardy's plane AND at the train station with Supes in the end may feel forced in Snyder's movie. But truth be told, it also makes the movie feel more focused.

And then, Donner on his best day is just a very choppy director. Snyder is more fluid. And I know it's been said 1000 times but I have to say it again: Superman turning back time is freakin dumb.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum